Thread: Canon EOS 7D
09-03-2009, 02:58 AM #35
09-03-2009, 03:02 AM #36
09-03-2009, 03:15 AM #37
Abt Canon trying to outfox Nikon's D300..could be true..
Now, this sounds more like the "killer" camera!!..
Apparently, yes, prior to the release of this 7D line, Canon realized their 50D line wasn't selling too well, thus they came out with this new 7D line. Also, I don't know if they were talking abt this new Canon 7D or will the new 60D be even better than the 7D??
And if the supposed new 60D model comes out with the same tech as the 1D+5D, i wonder how much will they sell it for?? $2000??..
Canon EOS 60D/7D – APS-H? [CR1]
July 13th, 2009 Posted in Canon 60D
Canon has apparently been humbled by the lack sales with the 50D. The 40D was a fantastic selling camera for Canon.
The motivation for the next incarnation is to directly attack the success of Nikon’s D300.
A newer contact has said there will be an APS-H based xxD sized body. It will have a version of the EOS-1 AF system, so expect more AF points than the current 50D. It will shoot 6fps. It will have the same build quality of the 5D Mark II. It will have a new 12.1mp sensor.
The hope is to retail the camera for $1999 USD initially.
At that price point, there is definitely room for another prosumer camera. Perhaps a 50D with video?
Last edited by ctjcad; 09-03-2009 at 03:18 AM.
09-03-2009, 03:22 AM #38
for others that left behind,
mid range and high end range lenses are more capable to produce good or excellent images. even 3rd party lenses maker, Sigma does produce lenses to shy Leica away. i did post it in other thread.
no doubt leica and carl zeiss also produce great lenses. affordable is the barrier. one may treat leica or carl zeiss is godlike camera and lenses, doesnt mean other will follow. by the way, my hand phone camera also having carl zeiss lens.
testing lenses against image produce to the wall is different onto film or digital sensor. as i said above, most lenses are capable to produce excellent image. again, unless one needs to print it to 30' X 40'. the bigger the print, we always can touch up in the computer. again, why need to debate which is better? i tell can confirm and stand on my view. my mother produce 2 lenses and can never be challenge by Leica nor Carl Zeiss. my two eyes with around 45mm f/1.0. no barrel distortion, no pincushion. not even chromatic abbreviation, no coma and no astigmatism. single elements only.
old austin engine is like comparing P&S film camera with mercedes S320 which will be nikon F5. current mercedes s350 is like nikon D3x. time has passed. one may say my leica m6.2 can sell USD5000, but where is the market. maybe just one old uncle that appreciate will buy it at USD8000.
again, why need spend R&D to produce dedicated lenses for aps-c format?
i am a professional photographer. i do mostly in sports such as badminton, F1, football, swimming etc.... i carry EOS 1D III as standard issue. now, i get 7D as back-up body. i will consider myself stupid to get dedicated lenses for 7D and lugging around, whereas the lenses can use with both body. trust me on this, not many enthusiast in here(BC), ever carry 15kgs of photography equipments wondering around for days. i dare to challenge.
we are very out of topic. as we do request facts, we request photos and yet only talk in here. we do love to learn from each other on the final images that produced not debating which gear is the BEST in world. share with us, the excellent photographs, let us learn.
i can take badminton photography with my Canon digital camera G7 which i can say better than some one using EOS 5D + 200mm f/2.8.
09-03-2009, 03:23 AM #39
09-03-2009, 03:31 AM #40
as for (if the is any) 60D, i have no idea what will it becomes. just now, i stop at my friend's place and chit-chat about it too.
IF, canon comes out 60D, what will it be? committing suicide? we also dont know why canon comes out so many similiar body.
09-03-2009, 03:52 AM #41
For one, the 1D MkII's prices have gone down at least more than 50%, but it's been 4-5 yrs since it first came out...
For the mid-range DSLRs, their prices will probably come down a bit faster..
Last edited by ctjcad; 09-03-2009 at 04:00 AM.
09-03-2009, 04:36 AM #42
In real life examples, none of the lens makers has done what you have proposed -- to increase the aperture by 1 stop even from image circle reduction of 2x radius (4/3 vs FF). None of Leica, Zeiss, Canon, Nikon or Olympus has done it.
I will appreciate if you can just give 1 example to support your claim instead of theorizing.
Lens size is also dependent on the sensor size. However, if a lens on a F/F is lighter than another lens of the same focal length and speed on an APS-C, then we are not comparing apples with apples. Cheap lens use more plastics and cheap optics that are light, contributing to its light weight. Do you know why Canon's L lenses and almost all Leica lenses are very heavy? The same applies to Olympus' very high quality fast lenses made for their 4/3 cameras.
You are totally missing the point. You said 200/2.8 for FF will be heavier than a 200/2.0 for APC-S. I brought out examples showing otherwise albeit with 300/2.8 4/3 vs 300/2.8 FF vs 300/4 FF (the former being the smallest format but the heaviest).
Of course unwanted light reflects bad lens design. No lens designer will design a lens specifically for more than one format. I have experimented with this-using Hasselblad Zeiss lenses on the Leica-and they were easily out-gunned by their little 35mm Leican M lenses. On the Leica M body this was easy to test. You hust mount a frosted pc of plate glass on the film plane, focus at colour test charts on the wall, and then use a 50 x magnifier to examine the frosted glass. No need to take pictures or to depend on the recording medium. It is strictly putting optics to the test, without any other inputs from sensors, films, shutter, camera shake, etc.
09-03-2009, 04:56 AM #43
i really lost where we are.
big lens such as hasselblad is better as one use with leica camera.
do anyone know what is sweet spot for lenses? it is the middle.
as when the hasselblad mount to leica, the 35mm film get the 'sweet spot' of the larger lens. same to aps-c using FF lenses. centre = 'sweet spot' = better quality image. go merry-go-round and confuse me further.
again, why need to produce dedicated "L" lenses for 7D?
09-03-2009, 06:22 AM #44
with aps-c using 35mm lens, it take the good part (center).
now I will throw something in... well I was actually trying to understand why.. but has anyone ever check the AF of those FF compared to aps-c?
you will notice on FF, the AF point seem more centered overall compared to APC-C which seem spread further to the side..
Well to be honest I never really try to research but I think this is related to that 'sweet spot' mentioned by Drifit..
also, why the AF in the center is more sensitve and some body has center optimise to f2.8, IMHO this is related to this center 'sweetspot'
09-03-2009, 06:28 AM #45
I could be wrong but I after reading this thread, I got impression that Canon should not actually make 7D APS-C, this could screw up the xxD line.
making 60D powerful (close to 7D) and it will kill 7D market, making it far from 7D... why not just call it 50D2 and it wont sell well.
IMHO Canon should make 7D APS-H so it directly inline with 1Ds to 1D as with 5D to 7D. and keep xxD line separate enough to see real difference between xxD line with 7D line.
09-03-2009, 08:08 AM #46
After reading all the fun you all having, wanted to get back in, now even more expensive . Oh yeah, I agree with you, it's the skills that's important, not latest tech.
Last edited by eaglehelang; 09-03-2009 at 08:16 AM.
09-03-2009, 08:12 AM #47
maybe.... just maybe....
canon is dumping its xxD line. there will be no 55D or 60D nor 50D II. move on, coming in 14 months time, 8D!
09-03-2009, 08:52 AM #48
09-03-2009, 11:34 AM #49
However, I do not think centre AF being most sensitive have anything to do with the MTF charts. I believe it is a design decision that is aligned with the way photographers tend to prefer to use AF.
Imagine when area AF does not lock on the correct subject. The fastest way to acquire focus is to choose a single AF sensor. In most cases, the centre sensor is chosen. This is particularly true for event coverage when the scenary is fairly dynamic. Stick with the centre sensor, AF and re-frame is much faster than relying on the camera's AI. As a result, the centre sensor is usually the most sensitive.
Then, of course, there was canon's eye controlled focus.
09-03-2009, 06:39 PM #50
This just crossed my mind..
*I have a funny feeling Canon might release a 2D, 3D and 4D line in the future..
Last edited by ctjcad; 09-03-2009 at 06:51 PM.
09-03-2009, 09:35 PM #51
Shooting 400 frames with a DSLR is a no-brainer really as long as your memory card can take it. And the best part is 36 shots or 36,000 shots, or for that matter 136,000 shots, its the same US$1,700 shots . Even with a typical keeper rate of 20%, and you print all of them in 4R or 5R. Its still cheaper by a huge margin to enjoy photography compared to film !!
You need like to develop 10 rolls of film to get about 300 worthy photos (at best for 80% keeper rate), in typical costs say like that in Malaysia, that's about RM$400!?
Carefully selected 300 shots out of say 1500 costs perhaps RM$240 to print ? Try extrapolating that over 30,000 prints, and the cost differences are tremendous! Amortize that over the initial cost difference to buy a DSLR and its still way cheaper!
So, the real costs of ownership for photography has really come down.